Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
JasonMPD
Senior MemberPosts: 6,583 Senior Member
Federal regulations for local police?
JasonMPD
Senior MemberPosts: 6,583 Senior Member
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/217906-lawmakers-unveil-bill-to-de-militarize-cops
Before you all start rejoicing that LE agencies may have to adhere to federal regulations about the use / ownership of surplus vehicles granted to police departments, if passed, consider the implications...
This may open the door to future federal oversight of local police operations. It can further solidify federal influence into police activities and influence the use of these "demonic military vehicles". Why else would they not want police agencies to sell the vehicles? They aren't being exported for sale. Who cares if LEO #1 sells an up-armored vehicle to LEA #2?
I think this is a dangerous Pandora's box, potentially. Once you let the federal government into anything "local" it is almost impossible to get them out.
I see the path this whole citizens/police relations are going and a broad implication of how it will effect the criminal element in a way lucrative to them. An unattended serious mental issue in this country causing violence along with other factors that embolden criminals... Theft in my city alone is up 20% from last year.
I have a legitimate fear for the public at large in the coming decade...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Before you all start rejoicing that LE agencies may have to adhere to federal regulations about the use / ownership of surplus vehicles granted to police departments, if passed, consider the implications...
This may open the door to future federal oversight of local police operations. It can further solidify federal influence into police activities and influence the use of these "demonic military vehicles". Why else would they not want police agencies to sell the vehicles? They aren't being exported for sale. Who cares if LEO #1 sells an up-armored vehicle to LEA #2?
I think this is a dangerous Pandora's box, potentially. Once you let the federal government into anything "local" it is almost impossible to get them out.
I see the path this whole citizens/police relations are going and a broad implication of how it will effect the criminal element in a way lucrative to them. An unattended serious mental issue in this country causing violence along with other factors that embolden criminals... Theft in my city alone is up 20% from last year.
I have a legitimate fear for the public at large in the coming decade...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
Replies
There is no doubt in my mind that we will not read about these actions in the paper or see them on the news until it is a done deal and too late for the general public to do anything about it.
NRA Life Member
But after seeing so many chiefs of police stand shoulder-to shoulder with Washiington dirtbags wanting to put more federal noses in my private life, it's hard not to point and do a Nelson-from-the-Simpson's "Ha-Ha!"
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
Don't need the Feds involved in local law enforcement any more than they already are. The Fed approach is 'one size fits all', and that always causes problems. Feds took the gas tax money, and then withheld it from states to force compliance with drinking age and speed limits. And the list goes on and on and on.
― Douglas Adams
Believe it or not, I agree with you 100%.
As much as think PDs need more oversight, I'd rather that come via civilian review. I trust nothing coming out of DC.
The link just said this, so what is actually in it????
They (Civilian LEOS agencies) are already restricted from selling certain things/giving them away/ selling for scrap metal things like MRAPS and must return them back to the Pentagon.
Is there something in the Bill that would give the Feds oversight of local PDs?
"The new proposal would scale back the program by barring the transfer of certain equipment from the Pentagon to local police departments, including high-caliber weapons, sound cannons, grenades, grenade launchers and certain armored vehicles. It would also adopt new reporting requirements designed to ensure that equipment that is transferred under the program is not lost, stolen or misappropriated. "
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
[/QUOTE]Insinuating That a US Senator and the number one federal LEO would lie. How dare you. wink! wink! I'm really just trying to confuse the NSA and avoid waking up in Guantanamo bay. Concerning fired military brass. It was not as bad in 1992 re: selling it to civilians but was still unnecessarily complicated. I was detailed as a range safety officer. When everything was finished and we were packing up I discovered a box filled with 120 loaded 30 round M-16 magazines. Returning live ammunition to the ammunition supply point (ASP) in original packaging was difficult enough. Once removed from boxes bandoleers and ammo cans it was impossible. Once fired brass could be returned in bulk and was just weighed. Fortunately our 1st sergeant was there to make the decision that we needed to expend the ammunition and recover the brass. We each pulled 6 m-16 A-1s from the racks and proceeded to go Rambo firing from the hip. We changed our rifle after every magazine so as not to damage them by overheating.
I'm not sure and that is what scares me. The" reporting requirements" is a bit ambiguous. If equipment - especially expensive equipment - is lost or stolen it gets written up immediately. If the government gave us a MRAP and we "lost" the huge damn thing, we'd have to report that; likewise if stolen. So I'm not understanding this reporting requirement... It already exists.
Mostly it gets their foot in the door...
You KNOW this bill would include verbiage like, "The requirements set forth in this law are not limited to the so-named requirements and the Department of the Interior Division of Police States may conduct additional audits and enforcement action not named specifically in the law."
They ALWAYS put that vague crap in federal law... I'm telling you, having any lackadaisical or ho-hum attitude about this bill is a bad idea.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Adam J. McCleod
To be fair, this is what happens when people allow emotions to override their common sense.
Shouldn't smalltown Idaho or Missouri residents (as an example) share the blame for letting their local PDs arm themselves like this? ISIS ain't coming to the Ozarks, folks.
That was my point. IF and that's a BIG if, the local PDs want to buy this gear, then the constituents get a say in the purchase. Nobody complains if the gear is "free" until the PDs use them to raid the wrong house or the equipment gets stolen and nobody notices for a week. See Palestine, AR.
Adam J. McCleod
I'm not so sure that is the avenue this bill traveled on. It was quiet for the most part until media sensationalism over the "militarization" of police and now two politicians looking for notoriety are spearheading this effort. It's political posturing. I really don't think it's the result of accepting the things from Uncle Sam in the first place.
Yes, but not in the way you imply, IMHO. After Sandy Hook it was all the rage to further demonize and vilify AR15. Now, police have these up-armored vehicles - many acquired in the wake of Aurora, CO and Sandy Hook - and now the public demonizes the vehicles and the decisions that got them in the hands of local PDs. Yes, they've been acquiring them before those incidents, but all these mass shootings have spurred more acquisition in response to much public outcry for more protection from mass shooters.
So... Make up your minds people. Do you want up-armored vehicles available to LEO or not?
I bought - with my own money - a plate vest, level 4 plates front and back, and I have 8 AR mags... 6 with green tip FMJ and 2 with 5.56 AP ammo... Am I too militarized or am I just prepared to deal with an increasingly more common occurrence?
We have two malls, 7 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 4 high schools, 4 colleges (one is a university), 15 parks, several government buildings, a dozen or more government contractor facilities and a huge public downtown area. Should I only have 30 rounds of .45GAP and my soft vest?
If you want everyday citizens to keep the right to keep and bear arms, prepare for the eventuality that some of the wolves will use them for evil... And evil is on the increase.
Are YOU prepared for a shooting in your mall while you are shopping there?
And it's funny you mention small towns and ISIS... No, ISIS is not a concern there. The county Sandy Hook is located in never thought any of their tiny towns would have a mass shooting either.
Wake up now. Be vigilant and be reasonable.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
ETA: I removed the part about the AR at Sandy Hook since it was conjecture and not researched.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Citizens COULD be prepared, but the LE vilification of citizens openly carrying ARs and AKs is applauded even here. If a lunatic or ISIS terrorist decided to shoot up the local mall, I'm left with my G-22 and a spare mag. You get an AR and 8 mags, I get a pistol and a spare mag. Not really an ideal SD situation, is it?
Adam J. McCleod
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to open carry rifles, but as it stands now, that's not possible and a majority of people simply wouldn't do it otherwise.
AND a majority of people would still run away. Who will run towards the gunfire?
AND police have a duty to respond, you don't. So, I HAVE to go, so yes, I have the equipment to do that as safe as possible.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
You vilify ME infinitely more than I vilify you.
And isn't it more likely it's the government law markers vilifying open carry citizens than cops doing it?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Presence restated and finding expended rounds and bullets matching said rifle: page 37.
www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf
I don't give a damn what the majority of people do or don't do. That is not what defines liberty or individual safety. You have a duty to respond. I have a duty to survive. And make sure my kids survive. 10,000 cops with MRAPs and ARs cannot accomplish this when it hits the fan. Cops are second responders.
Adam J. McCleod
I have never vilified you. I have vilified LE for extra-constitutional behavior and the complete lack of accountability.
The law markers (sic) will vilify OC people, but I haven't seen a congressman (or woman) harass anyone open carrying. That is ALWAYS the police.
Adam J. McCleod
I'm not referring to a broad scale situation. If that were the case I would have ceased being a cop and evolved into a survivalist.
Cops/paramedics/firefighters are first responders. Being in a place at the coincidental moment "it" occurs doesn't make you a responder, it just means you're there. BUT, I would LOVE to see a group of citizens band together and face a wolf on his offensive and dominate him. I'd buy those dudes a beer that night. But it won't happen - not in any regularity anyhow.
And you absolutely have the duty to preserve your life and your family's lives - I get that. But as people are being mowed down by a madman with a gun, how many people have to run away before someone says "enough" and actually challenges that madman. 99% will flee. We need those that won't flee and they need the equipment to make that task of going towards the gunfire even safer.
And since slinging a rifle on your back isn't always practical, I highly advocate keeping a rifle in your vehicle in a quick opening strong box or locker. And I mean keep a rifle in your vehicle. Because you never know.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Bold for response.